Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

You're an idiot. It's a simple argument because its a simple answer. No, citizens should not be able to own assault rifles.

What is an assault rifle and what makes them so scary to you? And you cant just walk into a shop buy an automatic weapon and leave ($4000 is about the cheapest plus a 6-12 month wait an ak 47 or m16 is $20k ish) they aren't being used in crimes...i think there's only been 2 murders siNce the 1930s with registered legal machine guns(250000ish legally registered and owned)

The problem is the crazy focking evil people. There is no way to stop them they will always find a tool to carry out their goals. Look at 9/11 who thought crazy evily bastards turned a plane into a weapon/bomb.

I am not going to waste hours arguing here but an "assault rifle" is not any more dangerous than any other gun 99% of the time.

An AR15 is a much smaller bullet than any hunting rifle. The fact that it is not bolt action makes it quicker to shoot, but there are tons of hunting rifles that are semi auto and not an "assault rifle." A reload takes 5 seconds. In addition, one could easily just carry 5 hand guns and empty each of them.

The fact is, if you are winning to die to kill others, the weapon choice is not going to matter. How hard would it be to floor your car into a crowd a people? Pipe bomb in a mall? Walk into a small store full of people and chain the door shut and start a fire with gas and lighter? etc.

300,000,000 guns and 300,000,000 people in the US. As terrible as these shootings are, have you heard of 300 deaths in the last five years? That would be .0001%

150 people per year die from peanuts.

Guns are not the problem, people are.

Quote:

According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

Hundreds of other mass murderers have perpetrated their crimes without firearms. Frenchman Pierre Riviere killed his mother, sister, and brother with a bill hook in 1835. In 1932, Julian Marcelino, a Filipino immigrant of relatively small stature, managed to kill six and wound 15 on a Seattle street using only a pair of blades.

You know my views about guns. I am wondering if anyone here can defend the idea of citizens being about to buy and possess assault rifles in light of the latest in an unending string of tragedies involving firearms?

As a Connecticut resident,'in light of the latest in an unending string of tragedies involving firearms' I have not seen an assault weapon used. I do know that having seen these tragedies that bad things can happen to good people. Being good people myself,I want every variable to be slanted in my favor for the sake of my own survival and well being. I also want the ability to protect and defend myself from people who are not capable or willing to act responsibly. That means carry firearms and use good judgement with respect to where I am and what is going on around me. Especially since criminals commit crimes more often than noncriminals,I feel there is no need for a knee jerk reaction to gun control.

You know my views about guns. I am wondering if anyone here can defend the idea of citizens being about to buy and possess assault rifles in light of the latest in an unending string of tragedies involving firearms?

You're confused in terminology.

Assault rifles, by definition, are capable of either fully automatic or burst fire (i.e. you pull the trigger and three bullets come out). What was used in CT was, by the definition of anyone familiar with guns, not an assault rifle. Perhaps what you mean is the term "assault weapon," which is a made-up term by a bunch of people with no knowledge of firearms and was used in a piece of legislation in the 90s that literally made as much sense as white-only drinking fountains.

What you seem to be arguing against are all semi-automatic rifles. From a functional standpoint, the AR-15 used in CT is no different than the average wood-grain hunting rifle that some fat redneck is currently holding in the woods as he waits for a deer or other animal to come along.

So is your argument against all semi-automatic (i.e. one pull of the trigger = one bullet comes out) rifles or only against the ones that are black and military-looking?

I have a hard time believing this gun

is more dangerous than this gun

simply because it's black, when they are functionally and ballistically similar.

Let's also consider that the shooter wore all black gear, though he did not attack at night. Did the black garb he wore enhance his attack at all? Perhaps aesthetically (people wearing all black tactical gear are visually scarier than people wearing linen suits, for example), but I would argue that he would've been equally as effective (I hate using such a callous term, but that's what it is) if he had been wearing a linen suit. Does this mean we should ban black clothing because it's the preferred garb of violent deranged people?

Now, I'll readily admit that I'm a gun owner who will carry a concealed weapon if it ever becomes legal in my state, and I will also readily admit that I have certain reservations about guns and CCW permits. And I would be happy to discuss those reservations with anyone who has a reasonable knowledge of firearms.

What I will not engage in, is a discussion that is equally ignorant to assuming all black youths in baggy jeans and hoodies are dangerous because of the way they look.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacques chirac

I don't see what is ridiculous by robbing with a sword.A sword in one od the most lethal wepon !!!

Also, without diminishing the atrocity of what happened in CT, let's remember that 27 people are killed every day by drinking and driving. If you're arguing for total prohibition of "assault rifles" but not alcohol, forgive me for thinking you're actively ignoring MUCH larger societal issues.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacques chirac

I don't see what is ridiculous by robbing with a sword.A sword in one od the most lethal wepon !!!

Glorified in a sense that the velocity is extremely high because the casing is packed with a sh!t ton of gun powder. .223 is brutal.

Yeah but weak compared to 7.62 x 39 which is just as common in assault weapons. Unlike the. 223/5.56 that will just go through you or piss you off, you have a high velocity .30 cal that will obliterate your insides because it tumbles on impact. Id rather get shot by the .22 on steroids.

This is ****in stupid. If "citizens" can go buy and own an assault rifle.. Who says they won't be the next gunmen? Now they have an assault rifle and at any time can walk into a building and begin shooting.

You're a moron, I'm actually sad that you are supposed to represent the best and brightest our military has to offer. smh

__________________

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin

“I wanted [Jimmy] Carter in and I wanted [Ford] out,” comedian Chevy Chase would later admit of his mocking Ford impersonation on "Saturday Night Live", “and I figured look, we're reaching millions of people every weekend, why not do it."

This is still heeeelarious. Our own MILITARY POLICE don't know the history and principals of our nation.

**** it, I'm moving to China. They're doing better anyway.

You are seriously the biggest idiot here. This is an opinion thread. I state my opinion and you tell me I'm wrong? Seriously if you're that ignorant and think you have the right to tell some that THEIR opinion is wrong.. Re-evaluate your purpose in life kid.

You are seriously the biggest idiot here. This is an opinion thread. I state my opinion and you tell me I'm wrong? Seriously if you're that ignorant and think you have the right to tell some that THEIR opinion is wrong.. Re-evaluate your purpose in life kid.

The problem is, that your opinion appears to be the most ignorant bucnh of catach phrases assembled into a sentence.

Really, I should not be able to own an AR-15? I can't own an AK either right? So, what is stopping me from having a 33 round mag in my glock, or is that too much as well?

Is my gun going to magically jump off the shelf and kill someone? Does the AR-15 know it is an AR-15, and think it must kill people, or does it come down to the person holding it?

When is an AR-15 more dangerous than another semi auto rifle, or pistol? Does the fact that the rifle is black and scary have to do with it, or is it because it holds a distinct advantage over other dark and scary rifles?

See, your opinion is just that, yours. My opinion is that you are a walking talking idiot, who uses catch phrases to assert his opinion. Get over it. You are a minority in this country (no this is not racial) and will forever deal with the fact that others have these weapons, and will continue to get these weapons, and any legislation you put on the table, and the total number of gun free zone signs you place, will never matter to a person looking to commit a crime with a gun, of what ever shape, size, caliber and color. You can disarm the entire population of good guys, and the bad guys will still look for their advantage, and own a gun, even if they are not allowed to. They will use those weapons while committing a crime, because they do not care.

If you are naive enough to think anything will change for the better with legislation that disarms the country, I can't help you. I just hope nothing ever happens to you, where you need a gun. Hell, if you feel so strongly about it, post your picture, so I can carry it around in my wallet, and refuse to help you or your family with my gun if I ever see you being robbed. I'll stand, point and laugh, hell I'll even call the cops for you. Sound good?

Assault rifles, by definition, are capable of either fully automatic or burst fire (i.e. you pull the trigger and three bullets come out). What was used in CT was, by the definition of anyone familiar with guns, not an assault rifle. Perhaps what you mean is the term "assault weapon," which is a made-up term by a bunch of people with no knowledge of firearms and was used in a piece of legislation in the 90s that literally made as much sense as white-only drinking fountains.

What you seem to be arguing against are all semi-automatic rifles. From a functional standpoint, the AR-15 used in CT is no different than the average wood-grain hunting rifle that some fat redneck is currently holding in the woods as he waits for a deer or other animal to come along.

So is your argument against all semi-automatic (i.e. one pull of the trigger = one bullet comes out) rifles or only against the ones that are black and military-looking?

I have a hard time believing this gun

is more dangerous than this gun

simply because it's black, when they are functionally and ballistically similar.

Let's also consider that the shooter wore all black gear, though he did not attack at night. Did the black garb he wore enhance his attack at all? Perhaps aesthetically (people wearing all black tactical gear are visually scarier than people wearing linen suits, for example), but I would argue that he would've been equally as effective (I hate using such a callous term, but that's what it is) if he had been wearing a linen suit. Does this mean we should ban black clothing because it's the preferred garb of violent deranged people?

Now, I'll readily admit that I'm a gun owner who will carry a concealed weapon if it ever becomes legal in my state, and I will also readily admit that I have certain reservations about guns and CCW permits. And I would be happy to discuss those reservations with anyone who has a reasonable knowledge of firearms.

What I will not engage in, is a discussion that is equally ignorant to assuming all black youths in baggy jeans and hoodies are dangerous because of the way they look.